Site Mobile Navigation

Mitchell to Try Again With Baker

WHAT did Dusty Baker know and when did he know it? Maybe he did not know anything, but whatever the level of Baker’s knowledge, the Mitchell steroids investigators may yet have a chance to ask him.

They had their first chance to speak to Baker, the Chicago Cubs’ manager, last week, but they canceled the scheduled interview because of a dispute over Baker’s legal representation at the interview.

That issue was resolved this week or is on its way to resolution, and George J. Mitchell’s band of lawyers will presumably reschedule the session.

Baker is an appealing witness to them because he managed Barry Bonds for 10 years in San Francisco and Sammy Sosa for two years in Chicago. Bonds and Sosa are in the forefront of players suspected of using performance-enhancing substances.

Baker declined yesterday to discuss his role. “Dusty’s not interested in commenting on that subject,” Jason Carr, the Cubs’ manager for media information, said by telephone from Milwaukee.

Baker’s appearance before the investigators became mired in a thorny issue that popped up in June: Current players have the right to appear before Mitchell’s investigators with lawyers because of the collective-bargaining agreement, but could nonplaying witnesses bring lawyers with them, and could former players ask the union to represent them? In each case, Mitchell initially said no.

In fact, Mitchell, through his representatives, told the clubs in June that not only could nonuniformed employees not have lawyers with them when answering questions, but if they opted not to be interviewed without lawyers, he would seek to have them deemed noncooperative and face disciplinary action from Commissioner Bud Selig up to and including dismissal.

Why would the investigators object to lawyers accompanying witnesses? They would not say. Mitchell and one of his investigative aides, Charles Scheeler, did not return telephone calls to their offices yesterday. A spokesman for Mitchell, John Clarke, said, “We have no comment on the questions you asked about.”

A popular view among lawyers with knowledge of the proceedings is that Mitchell’s investigators, many of them former prosecutors, would prefer to ask witnesses questions without lawyers interfering.

Mitchell, the former majority leader of the United States Senate and a former federal prosecutor, was put in charge earlier this year of baseball’s investigation into the use of performance-enhancing substances. He doesn’t have the authority to discipline anyone who doesn’t cooperate with his investigation, but he told clubs in June that he would recommend that Selig hand out punishment to current employees who were uncooperative.

Selig has subsequently decided that nonuniformed employees could have their personal lawyers with them, which may pre-empt the possibility that anyone working in baseball will not cooperate.

That was the view expressed yesterday by half a dozen people in baseball who work in off-the-field capacities and have knowledge of the behind-the-scenes discussions. They talked on condition of anonymity because of what they said was the sensitivity of the issues involved in the mechanics of the investigation.

They also said the lack of understanding of the agreement might have undermined the Baker interview. Baker, an 18-year major league player, had planned to have a union lawyer as well as his own lawyer at the interview.

The Mitchell people, however, said the union lawyer could be present only for questions they asked that related to his playing career. Questions about his post-playing career would be off-limits to the union lawyer, they said. The union reminded the commissioner’s office of their agreement. The DLA Piper people said they had to talk to Mitchell, then they called off the interview.

Now, however, the DLA Piper people have apparently accepted or are close to accepting the agreement, and the Baker interview will be rescheduled.

The commissioner’s office is trying hard to keep this a peaceful procedure. Selig hired Mitchell to investigate steroids use in baseball, but he and his aides don’t want to be seen as riding roughshod over the union.

Major League Baseball and the union are in the process of negotiating a new collective-bargaining agreement to replace the one that expires Dec. 19, and relations between them are probably better than ever. Furthermore, baseball is flourishing, and Selig isn’t looking to derail the momentum.

With peace lurking in the background, the two sides also reached agreement on Mitchell’s request for players’ medical information from clubs.

The union objected to sharing medical information, threatening to sue baseball if it gave Mitchell any of it. The commissioner’s office advised clubs it did not want to incur any lawsuits.

Then the two sides negotiated a procedure under which Mitchell can request medical records and clubs will determine if they can produce any of them under existing law.

The player and the union would review the information before it went to Mitchell, and the union and the commissioner’s office would discuss any disagreement.

That procedure has yet to be tested.

Baker would not be the first witness to appear as a former player with a union lawyer. At least two former players have met with investigators with union lawyers present. Others are scheduled to appear this month. Other former players have met with investigators without union lawyers.